Cargando…
Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
S. Karger AG
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808639/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35073555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121 |
_version_ | 1784862975744540672 |
---|---|
author | Allo, Gabriel Bürger, Martin Gillessen, Johannes Kasper, Philipp Franklin, Jeremy Mück, Vera Nierhoff, Dirk Steffen, Hans-Michael Goeser, Tobias Schramm, Christoph |
author_facet | Allo, Gabriel Bürger, Martin Gillessen, Johannes Kasper, Philipp Franklin, Jeremy Mück, Vera Nierhoff, Dirk Steffen, Hans-Michael Goeser, Tobias Schramm, Christoph |
author_sort | Allo, Gabriel |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606–0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594–0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612–0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653–0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687–0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57–0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579–0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602–0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572–0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592–0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683–0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%. CONCLUSION: C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9808639 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | S. Karger AG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98086392023-01-04 Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Allo, Gabriel Bürger, Martin Gillessen, Johannes Kasper, Philipp Franklin, Jeremy Mück, Vera Nierhoff, Dirk Steffen, Hans-Michael Goeser, Tobias Schramm, Christoph Dig Dis Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606–0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594–0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612–0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653–0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687–0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57–0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579–0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602–0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572–0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592–0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683–0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%. CONCLUSION: C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups. S. Karger AG 2022-11 2022-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9808639/ /pubmed/35073555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121 Text en Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Usage, derivative works and distribution are permitted provided that proper credit is given to the author and the original publisher. |
spellingShingle | Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article Allo, Gabriel Bürger, Martin Gillessen, Johannes Kasper, Philipp Franklin, Jeremy Mück, Vera Nierhoff, Dirk Steffen, Hans-Michael Goeser, Tobias Schramm, Christoph Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title | Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title_full | Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title_short | Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
title_sort | comparison of pre-endoscopic c-watch score with established risk assessment tools in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding |
topic | Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808639/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35073555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT allogabriel comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT burgermartin comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT gillessenjohannes comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT kasperphilipp comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT franklinjeremy comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT muckvera comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT nierhoffdirk comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT steffenhansmichael comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT goesertobias comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding AT schrammchristoph comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding |